2013 (5) TMI 700 - HC - Central Excise

Dismissal of appeal for non compliance of stay order - held that - The Tribunal had to necessarily go into the facts of each appellant s case and all the relevant questions, such as the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable hardship, if any, and indicate with clarity the amount they were required to deposit for the whole or part of liability. The omission to do so has led to the present situation, which is not the first of its kind. We notice that this kind of grievance has been voiced earlier also, which the Tribunal would be well-advised to avoid. The stay applications of individual appellants, having regard to their peculiar circumstances, should be considered individually and separate orders should be passed, rather than making an order that has to depend on the outcome of some other appellant s compliance with the terms of order in his (or its) case. - Tribunal to rehear the case - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against dismissal of appeals by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis:
The petitioners were aggrieved by the Tribunal's order dismissing their appeals without considering their cases on merits. The issue raised was whether the Tribunal erred in not evaluating the appellants' circumstances. The Tribunal directed the main applicant to deposit a significant amount within a specified period, failing which all appeals would be rejected. However, the Tribunal did not individually assess each appellant's liability, which varied among them. The Tribunal's failure to consider each appellant's unique situation led to the present situation. The High Court noted that similar grievances had been raised before and emphasized that the Tribunal should assess stay applications individually, avoiding blanket orders dependent on another party's compliance.

The Court found that the Tribunal's order needed to be set aside. It directed the Tribunal to grant a hearing to the appellants regarding the waiver of pre-deposit and to pass orders considering each appellant's case individually. The Court allowed the appeals and instructed the parties to appear before the Tribunal's Registrar for further proceedings.